On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:51:42AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Wed, 14 May 2003 09:14:20 -0400, Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > If that's the case, then maybe the testing distribution has outlived > > its usefulness. But if people feel otherwise, then it would make > > sense to think of ways in which testing might be able to be more > > true to its original goals --- which is to expand the number of > > people who can test out packages before a stable release. If that's > > the case, then for a giving platform: > > Hmm. I always thought that testing was a tool for release > management, and a replacement of the freeze mechanism. If so, it is > really only ready for extensive use and testing close to a stable > release -- when the RM calls uponm and lets lose the hrdes on testing > to sniff out undiscovered bugs. Untl then, it is a no mans land where > the ravening winds howl and moan.
That is what it really is, but not what we advertized when testing was first introduced. We told back then that the aim of testing was dual, and in addition to what you said, it would also be a place for people who want to run things newer than stable to go without getting the breakage of unstable they may not handle. By saying that, we encouraged people to use testing instead of unstable, none of which have security updates, and gave the impression that testing was more stable/secure/preferable/whatever to unstable, which is contrary to what you are saying. I don't say that what you say is wrong, just that people are not aware of it, because we did tell them differently back then. Friendly, Sven Luther
